High Methane Uptake from Soils of Low and High Density Radiata Pine Afforestations Compared to Herbaceous Systems

Bernardi, Maria De; Priano, María Eugenia; Fusé, Victoria Susana; Fernández, María Elena; Gyenge, Javier; Guzman, Sergio Alejandro; Juliarena, María Paula

doi:10.1080/10549811.2020.1745653

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Seasonal variation for the first period was evaluated in De Bernardi et al. (2021). No significant seasonal variation was found in each year of measurement in both natural grassland (NG) and afforestation (P1 and P2), while in A, winter

{\mathrm{f}}_{{\mathrm{CH}}_4}

presented a significant difference ( p < .05) concerning other seasons during the second period.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, studies in the same Pinus plantations have already reported higher CH 4 uptake and a potential biological contribution (i.e. methanotrophic activity) under this land use than under grassland and cropland (De Bernardi et al., 2021; Terán et al., 2022). This work aimed to contribute with new data about land‐use change effects on CH 4 flux measurements in two periods of one‐year long (non‐ consecutive) in four land uses located in a temperate region of the Southern Hemisphere in order to grow global knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Plantation P2 had no management corresponding to a high tree density sector with 977 plants per ha because of natural mortality, canopy cover of 70 ± 2% and no understorey cover. The height of dominant trees was 12.6 ± 1.2 and 12.6 ± 0.6 m, diameter at breast height (1.3 m) was 27.9 ± 3.3 and 22.1 ± 4.1 cm and a basal area of 45.0 and 38.6 m 2 ha −1 for P1 and P2, respectively, at the moment of CH 4 measurements (De Bernardi et al., 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intra-annual variation (2015Intra-annual variation ( -2016Intra-annual variation ( vs. 2018Intra-annual variation ( -2019 was found in agricultural area (A) and Pinus afforestation with high tree density (P2) (p < .05). Seasonal variation for the first period was evaluated in De Bernardi et al (2021). No significant seasonal variation was found in each year of measurement in both natural grassland (NG) and afforestation (P1 and P2), while in A, winter All mean f CH 4 values were negative (net CH 4 uptake) in all treatments (Figure 2, left panel), and f CH 4 differ significantly between land use (fixed-effect: Land-use effect = −13.284, 95% CI = [−8.399, −18.168], K = 4); a lower CH 4 uptake was observed in the A area and a higher CH 4 uptake in both forested areas (P1 and P2), while NG presented intermediate values, with statistical differences between them (Table 1; p < .05).…”

Section: Ch 4 Flux and Related Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Natural grassland conversion to agriculture or pine plantations: Effects on soil methane uptake

De Bernardi,

Priano,

Fernández

et al. 2024

Soil Use and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Upland soils are the only known biological sink for methane (CH4) by methanotrophic bacteria consumption. This process is mainly limited by the diffusion processes related to the soil's physical characteristics, which can be modified because of changes in land use depending on the soil type, the original system and the new land use converted. Our study focused on determining the differences in soil CH4 uptake because of changes in land use (from natural grassland to agricultural land and two Pinus radiata afforestation, differing in thinning management) and on determining which are the main drivers that control CH4 uptake in the studied soil type (Hapludoll), with focus on the diffusion process. CH4 fluxes were measured 12 times with the static chamber technique between October 2015 and April 2019. Also, CH4 gradient concentration in the soil profile and physical and chemical variables were measured on the same dates. All land uses studied acted as net CH4 sinks. Land‐use change from grassland to agriculture decreased soil CH4 uptake (~37% ± 19), whereas afforestation increased (~85% ± 73) this environmental service related to natural grassland. We found that the main drivers that control CH4 uptake in this soil are water and air‐filled pore space, variables that govern soil CH4 diffusion; they are mostly related to differences in bulk density (compaction) among land uses. Organic matter was also an important driver, mainly related to soil structure. Land‐use change affected all of these drivers. CH4 concentration presented differences at deeper soil layers only in the two afforestations, which differed in management (pruning and thinning vs. no management). However, CH4 uptake did not present significant differences between them, suggesting that there is no need for a high tree cover to increase the CH4 sink of the soil. This mixed tree and herbaceous cover may result in a similar environmental service output, increasing the options of land uses.

show abstract